get_track_meters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint: true. The description adds that meters are post-fader, range 0.0-1.0ish with 0.85 ≈ 0 dB, and that polling is expected. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not detail whether values are peak or RMS.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function and range, then adds practical usage advice. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for understanding the return values (left/right meters). It covers the essential behavior during playback. Minor deduction for not stating the output format or confirming stereo peak, but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter, track_index, with schema description coverage 0%. The description does not explain the parameter beyond what the schema title implies. Since the description should compensate for low schema coverage, it falls short by not clarifying the role of track_index (though it's somewhat inferable).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Read a track's output level meters' and the resource 'post-fader' with a specific range and reference point (0.85 ≈ 0 dB). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining its unique role in monitoring levels during playback, contrasting with other track manipulation or info tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to 'Poll during playback to judge balance/clipping' and frames this as how to 'listen' without exporting. This implies when to use the tool (during playback) but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclude other contexts. Slight deduction for lack of explicit when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.